I have not even begun to discuss the Chair at this stage. I do not understand how you could have taken that interpretation of my words. I do not see your own involvement in it at all, so I do not understand the reason for your response. The Minister's presentation was contemptuous and it was a very poor start to the Bill. I do not know the reasons for it and I thought it was unnecessary. One way or another, we can have our arguments, we can put the case, argue the point and be out-voted at the end of the day but it was certainly unacceptable as far as I am concerned. It would certainly not be acceptable in the other House. I am sure the Minister knows that this would be the general view of this side. I have said it outside the House and it is important that I say it inside the House as well.
Were we taking a longer period of time on Second Stage, I had intended to explore in detail the basis of what the Minister had to say in his very optimistic presentation of the Wireless and Telegraphy Bill of last year, when all was going to be well with the world, and when all these newcomers were going to make everything right, the implication being that RTE of course would not be able to survive in the very competitive milieu out there. The attempts to sort out RTE have proved to be sadly ineffective and because of that ineffectiveness, we are now back today to complete the burial process. That is the objective of this Bill and I have not the slightest doubt about it. It is incredible that the personal animosity of members of Cabinet towards the national broadcasting station should now manifest itself in the form of incomplete and defective legislation which reflects badly on all we try to do in the enactment of legislation.
The Minister's attitude towards RTE, was reflected in the contemptuous presentation of the Second Stage speech in this House. It was regrettable and unnecessary; it was a transference of the Minister's contempt for RTE to the processes of this House. It is important that it should be recognised as no more than that. I am prepared to defend my position on that.
There is nothing new about the thrust of this Bill. The thrust of this Bill is a very simple one — that when the public sector becomes over-competitive, vis-á-vis the private sector, we restrain it, block it, impede it or bury it. We do not let it operate.
Plenty of examples have been given here over the last two days as to how RTE go about their business. I am not going into that whole area but we need to look at what the licence fee is for. I hope some of the speakers on the far side of the House who would also present themselves as being the great supporters of all that is Gaelic and all that is Irish, whether it be in games, music or anything else, will also recognise that, when they throw RTE into the milieu of competitiveness without the support which was there before, TAM ratings must be taken into account when people vote according to their preference for a soccer match rather than Irish dancing as they will, we will listen again to the whinging on the far side. We should also recognise that those aspects of Irish culture which were promoted and developed by RTE will suffer in the future, because the hard edge of competitiveness will not allow RTE to promote them.
Certain elements of the funding of RTE might well have been profitably and positively considered by the Minister at this time. I do not have any objection, I have not the slightest difficulty about saying that RTE should not be given a head start on everybody else, except that I would say we should do it on a commercial basis. Let us ask what we require from RTE. What we require of RTE is quite clear and is written into the legislation that established it: to educate, inform and entertain. What aspect of that is public service broadcasting? What part of that is a national resonsibility? What aspects of that are considered to be uncommercial but necessary? We should cost those things and then have a licence fee which will cover that responsibility. Whatever the cost of it, let us have a licensed income in order to cover it. Beyond that, for commercial activities, let them then get into the marketplace and take on all-comers, as they have been so successfully doing in taking on probably the best television service in the world, in the mainland UK, or as some speakers now call it, the British Isles. I would like to have a discussion as to where exactly the British Isles are. There have been some passing references to it in the last while. It is not an area of the map on which I am quite clear.
There is no reason why RTE should not be commercial. I have consistently taken the view here that semi-State industry should be competitive. It should not be a drain on the taxpayer. It should not be there as a cost to everybody else. It should either provide a social service which is necessary and which we pay for out of taxation or, if it is on a competitive basis, should act competitively. I can apply that to any of the semi-State bodies, whether it be in the transport or the broadcasting sector. If we are saying RTE are required to spend X percentage of time in broadcasting as Gaeilge, mar shampla, we should consider how that will reflect itself in loss of income to RTE. If we require them to provide a certain amount of classical music, in terms of their broadcasting hours per year, we should consider the cost in terms of loss of advertising or the cost of setting up an orchestra and so on.
Let us cost those objectives and recognise our commitment to promote Irish culture, an Ghaeilge and Irish games, and to keep an orchestra or a drama section — the RTE Players or whoever they happen to be. Having costed our commitments we should then tailor the licence fee to meet them. Then let RTE go on the marketplace, sell their advertising and win their audiences in the same way as any other commercial activity. That seems to me a very reasonable procedure.
The way section 3 has been phrased is unfortunate. More unfortunate than the capping to the certain number of minutes per hour is the connection with the licence fee income. That is utterly unnecessary. That is an attempt to make RTE uncompetitive. That means, in effect, that they may not be able to charge the market rate if, for some reason, the advertising costs go up to such an extent that selling the five minutes at prime time will bring them over the annual level to which they are restricted by the connection to the licence fee income. That is a nonsense. No commercial undertaking would operate that way.
What sickens me more than anything else about this legislation is that for years we listened to claims that RTE were unprofitable, that we should make them profitable, make them lean, cut back on the fat, make them go out there and work for their audience, make them competitive, and make them pay their own way. It is the same with every semi-State body. I saw the ESB, Aer Lingus and all of them go through this. The Government were happier to be critical of those bodies when they could not make it in the marketplace because then they had a target to have a go at. But as soon as they became competitive, whether it was Aer Lingus vis-á-vis Ryanair or RTE vis-á-vis commercial broadcasting, and could find their own niche or start going ahead, then of course the influence of commercial people who have an input into the Government for whatever reason, suddenly becomes very important and it is the semi-State body that suffers. Whether it is taking routes from Aer Lingus or reducing the income of RTE, as we are doing here today, as soon as they become competitive, they become a threat and the answer is to bury them.
One of the aspects of the last Bill introduced by the Minister, on which I argued long and late into the night with the Minister, was the so-called cultural aspect. I raised with the Minister the prospect of educational broadcasting, which is not available in this country at the moment. It is not available through a lack of coordination by a wholy body of people including RTE. When the Bill came before the House last year I proposed an amendment which would have required each licensee to set aside a number of hours for the broadcasting of educational programmes. This is the only country in Western Europe that does not set aside time for the broadcasting of educational programmes. I put it to the Minister that he should have made this a requirement which could have been done at no cost. Unfortunately, he did not do so.
I also asked the Minister to make it a requirement that each licensee set aside a certain number of hours for the broadcasting of programmes through Irish. The Minister assured me that this matter would be taken into account in the issuing of licences but, again, this was not done. I further asked the Minister to make it a requirement that those stations providing a service in the Gaeltacht areas set aside time, in proportion to the population of the Gaeltacht, for the broadcasting of programmes through Irish but, once more, he did not do so.
It is amazing that RTE are criticised and that people will take a trip out to the station to picket them on the basis they are required to broadcast programmes through Irish but will not picket Century Radio, Capital or any other station. They only picket the national broadcasting station because there is a perception that this is the responsibility of the national broadcasting service. Unfortunately, RTE will be left with all the responsibility but with no money.
RTE are a superb station. That is not a conclusion I have come to within the past week; I express this view consistently. To my mind Radio 1 and BBC Radio 4 are two of the best English language stations in the world. In his famous "talk, talk, talk" speech a few years ago the Minister outlined the problems he had with a radio station whose "Morning Ireland" programme was followed by Gay Byrne, Pat Kenny, "The News at One" and by Marian Finnucane. The Minister argued that there was too much talk on the station and the people of Ireland did not want this. It is easy to see why any member of the Government would be worried about too much talk as talking leads to thinking which, in turn, leads to people becoming critical and very often critical people vote the wrong way.
It is a perfectly logical process but the reality is that the audience listenership surveys issued last week indicate that the stations which have come to the fore are those which broadcast talk shows. I am referring here to stations such as Clare FM, Carlow-Kildare Radio and Louth-Meath Radio. These stations broadcast talk shows and are attracting audiences. RTE have got the mix right. When we discussed the legislation to establish independent radio it was envisaged that Century Radio, when established, would offer an alternative to programmes such as "Morning Ireland" broadcast by RTE but they have failed to deliver. We have placed an onus on RTE to deliver the goods and broadcast programmes which are not popular or wanted by the people in the "licence to print money" business. At the end of the day, RTE are going to suffer.
Will the Minister agree that the most honest presentation made to the Independent Radio and Television Commission, prior to the issuing of licences, was made by the former owner of Radio Nova in which he stated that he would play music and utter one word of Irish each day? In hindsight, was that not the most honest presentation made in contrast to all the drivel we had to listen to? What is also significant — this marked the beginning of the cutting down of RTE — is that the Minister refused to allow them tender for local radio licences. I accept that if one is going to provide an alternative, RTE cannot be allowed provide it. That is fair enough but, in recognising they will not be able to compete at that level, there is one service they could provide to local stations and that is a news service by way of a separate company. They have the necessary technology, capital and personnel to provide such a service and it would allow them to make the maximum use of their resources. Unfortunately, they were not allowed to provide such a service.
When Century Radio were discussed some weeks back, at a time when it was envisaged they would go to the wall, it was pointed out that the one service which might stand on its own was their news service. At present they provide a news service to local stations around the country and are making a profit in the process. RTE identified this as a market for themselves and that showed they were on the ball.
I have no intention of discussing the various provisions of the Bill as I will have an opportunity to do so when we come to deal with Committee Stage but let me repeat I regret the tone of the Minister's presentation. As I said, the Minister was being contemptuous and I appeal to him to avail of the opportunity to argue the toss one way or the other. It seems to be defective legislation which the Minister will live to regret and I have no doubt he will have to come back to the House in a couple of years, as he had to do two years after introducing the previous Bill, to sort out the mess.